G.R. No.

186550 : July 5, 2010ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE AND LEASING

CORPORATION, Petitioner , vs SPOUSES CESARIO GRAVADOR and NORMA DE
VERA, and SPOUSES EMMA CONCEPCION G.DUMIGPI AND FEDERICO L.
DUMIGPI ,Respondents

FACTS:

On October 22, 1999, petitioner Asian Cathay Finance and Leasing Corporation (ACFLC)
extended a loan of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱800,000.00) to respondent Cesario
Gravador, with respondents Norma de Vera and Emma Concepcion Dumigpi as co-makers. The
loan was payable in sixty (60)monthly installments of ₱ 24,000.00 each. To secure the loan,
respondent Cesario executed real estate mortgage over his property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29234.

Respondents paid the initial installment due in November 1999. However, they were unable to
pay the subsequent ones. Consequently, on February 1, 2000, respondents received a letter
demanding payment of ₱ 1,871,480.00 within five (5) days from receipt thereof. Respondents
requested for an additional period to settle their account, but ACFLC denied the request.
Petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage with the Office of the Deputy
Sherriff of Malolos, Bulacan.

ISSUE:

WON the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the interest rates imposed on the
respondents’ loan, and the waiver of the right of redemption

HELD:

No.

The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and
voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an
iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support on
law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever
which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the
sphere of public or private morals.

Settled is the rule that for a waiver to be valid and effective, it must, in the first place, be couched
in clear and unequivocal terms which will leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up
a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. Additionally, the intention to waive a right or an
advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly. Unfortunately, ACFLC failed to convince us
that respondents waived their right of redemption voluntarily.